“The BSB is undertaking a ‘progress check’ with a sample of 40 chambers to commence in February 2013. This to understand the extent to which the profession is engaging with the new equality and diversity rules and to identify any areas of challenge for individuals and chambers.”

“Where a judge had heard pretrial evidence on an application for committal or in litigation commencing with a freezing order in the nature of cross-examination of a principal litigant or important potential witness and had come to some conclusions about it, he was judging the matter before him, as he was required by his office to do. If he did so fairly and judicially no fair-minded and informed observer would consider that there was any possibility of apparent bias.”

“It had been unlawful for the Scottish Ministers to fail to make the necessary regulations defining a who was a ‘qualifying patient’ detained at a ‘qualifying hospital’ and thus entitled to apply for a declaration from the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland that he was a person detained under conditions of excessive security pursuant to section 268 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 which came into force on 1 May 2006 pursuant to section 333(2) of that Act.”

“In family proceedings the court had jurisdiction to make more than one order under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 directing a local authority to investigate a child’s circumstances and consider issuing care proceedings. Where a judge was satisfied that the local authority either had not complied with the initial section 37 direction or had conducted an investigation which failed to a significant degree to engage with the court’s concerns, the court could extend or renew its section 37 direction.”

“The court had to identify the potential victim in a restraining order under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to reflect the underlying purpose of the provision to protect that person or class of persons from an acquitted defendant and could only impose an order if satisfied that the defendant was likely to pursue a course of conduct which amounted to harassment within the meaning of section 1 of the Act.”

“While there was nothing in section 118 of the Extradition Act 2003 to delay its operation pending the Secretary of State’s consideration of medical evidence after the conclusion of extradition statutory process, continued extra-statutory consideration of a case by the Secretary of State could be valid subject to the court’s judgment as to whether reasonable cause had been shown for delay following the conclusion of the appeal process.”